Pope Francis has suggested that the Vatican could support gay civil unions in the future, according to one of the churchs most senior cardinals.

Cardinal Dolan told American television that Francis wants church leaders to 'look into it and see the reasons that have driven them.'

'It wasn't as if he came out and approved them,' Dolan told NBC on Sunday. 'He said, Rather than quickly condemn them, let's just ask the questions as to why that has appealed to certain people.

In an interview to mark his first year in the churchs top job, Pope Francis last week reaffirmed the Vaticans opposition to gay marriage but indicated that some types of civil unions could be acceptable to the church.

The Pope restated the church's teaching that 'marriage is between a man and a woman,' but added 'We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety.'

Some countries justify civil unions as a way to provide the same economic and legal rights to cohabitating couples as those who are married, the Pope said in the interview with Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera.

As archbishop of Buenos Aires, the then Jorge Maria Bergoglio was one of the leaders of the Catholic Church's public charge against legalising same-sex marriage in Argentina. He called the proposed legislation a destructive attack on God's plan.

But behind closed doors the Argentine archbishop is said to have supported civil unions for same-sex couples.

Former theology professor and gay rights activist Marcelo Marquez said: 'He told me I'm in favour of gay rights and in any case, I also favour civil unions for homosexuals, but I believe that Argentina is not yet ready for a gay marriage law.

I wonder why the assumption is that civil partnership must involve people who have sex with one another? Why can’t legal protections sought in such partnerships apply to a caretaker and an a person under their care or to two very close friends?

26 And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Luke 17:26-27 (ASV)

Welcome to the "days of the Son of Man."

11
posted on 03/10/2014 12:43:20 PM PDT
by Rocky
(The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it. George Orwell)

“’If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?’

It’s obvious to anyone who wants to understand what the Pope said. He does NOT say they can be married in the Catholic Church. He says if a gay person “seeks God” then he will not judge them. BIG difference in saying he approves of gays.

Just consider the graces which could be dispensed by God upon those who seek God’s will.

Here we go again. Yet another “lost in translation” excuse. Ever since Francis became pope there has been one trial balloon after another, and every time the seeming confusion is somehow always wrapped around and effort to unwind from the scriptures.

I ask myself, why? Why is it that there has been this seeming ongoing effort from the Vatican to loosen scriptural standards? Why is there nary an example of a Vatican message of increased structure or discipline that has gotten lost in translation?

There seems to be a whole lot of trial balloons being sent out with a clear sense of plausible deniability attached.

I have a bad feeling about all this. To be perfectly honest, I think the Catholic church is itching to fall away and allow modern culture to direct their beliefs. Of course all this will be couched in becoming more “modern” more “relevant” to millenials or to whomever.

We are in very dangerous territory, but it could be that the wheat is about to get separated from the chaff in a divine way. My confidence in the Catholic church at the moment is very thin.

I disagree with you. Power of attorney does not cover all the legal aspects that are normally presumed to be only for married couples. My point was that the sexual behavior of the people in a civil partnership does not even have to be a factor.

This by the way is what the Pope said in the interview,

Q “Many nations have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?”

Pope’s answer, “Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldnt know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety.”

I, for one, still believe the Church should at least speak out against even-secular arrangements that institutionize and perpetuate such seriously anti-Biblical behavior.

But at the very, very least...I would urgently recommend that language such as “the Church will approve of...” be avoided, even if the Church decides not to speak against these things. There is a difference between not speaking against something... and openly stating or asserting Church “approval” of it.

The Church cannot “approve” of behavior that God condemns and still maintain its own legitimacy as His church, IMHO,

Pope Francis has suggested that the Vatican could support gay civil unions in the future, according to one of the churchs most senior cardinals.
I did not read the suggestion anywhere in the article. Could it be the authors own suggestion?
‘It wasn’t as if he came out and approved them,’ Dolan told NBC on Sunday. ‘He said, Rather than quickly condemn them, let’s just ask the questions as to why that has appealed to certain people.
Since we are reading suggestions into this, perhaps the Pope is saying Lets get to the cause of the sin and condemn that. After all arent we supposed to love the sinner but detest the sin?
In an interview to mark his first year in the churchs top job, Pope Francis last week reaffirmed the Vaticans opposition to gay marriage.
OK that sounds like a strong Catholic statement.
but indicated that some types of civil unions could be acceptable to the church.
Please show the actual quote because I am having a problem believing this. In the first part of the sentence he reaffirms the Churches position. In the second half of the sentence the claim is made he indicated.
Satan is working hard to destroy Christianity. Dont be so quick to believe him nor his minions in the liberal press.

A well reasoned post. I think there are many in denial of what will most likely happen. The Protestant “Roman clone churches” have already gone down this road of accepting “gay marriage”, ordaining women and even ordaining sodomites.

Traditional and Conservative Roman Catholics should be planning for another schism.

Eventually the comments of “the Pope is not speaking ex cathedra” will no longer suffice. Because on these very important moral matters the Pope will indeed have to go that way to make the “changes” he plans to make, if he ever makes such a decision. And then what happens...You have the Traditional Conservative Roman Catholics in effect betrayed by their church head. Where to go from there? One cannot impeach a pope now can they?

Indeed and when the Traditional and Conservative church going and faithful Roman Catholics are faced with such false teaching coming from the "top" what to do? Popes, from what I understand, cannot be "impeached."

Popes answer, Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldnt know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety.

Yes a carefully stated answer and fully understand what he meant by it. However, why did Pope Francis "let it hang out there" the 'evaluate them in their variety.' That part I don't understand. For what the Roman Catholic church stands for on morals is clear, no? Why would there be need to examine something which is clearly against church doctrine...unless one is considering to lower the bar a bit?

2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

“If you believe the quotations are false, please post what you believe are the correct ones.
If you can’t, please refrain from posting bad info.”

First of all, I didn’t give any bad info. I didn’t give any info at all. I simply said I thought the article was BS. That is my opinion. I will post my opinion here and I don’t give a damn what you think. I simply do not believe that the Church is open to gay marriage or gay civil unions. I have faith in that.

It has come to our attention that we are being made the scapegoats of everything the Pope says, as if we are not doing our jobs. This is inaccurate. We are not charged with perfection in translation. In fact, none of us speak a second language at all!

This may surprise many readers of this notice, so I will describe our role here at Ground Zero...or VeeCee, as we call it.

First, just months ago, we were all homeless on the Streets of Rome. The translation office is a jobs program for homeless Italians. Through the kindness of the Great leaders at VeeCee, 8 of us were recruited to a very fulfilling job with benefits. Many of us previously used Google Translate, so we had every qualification needed. Please note, our instructions are to get the message out fast. You may have noticed our Great Pope speaks "off the cuff" quite frequently, or as we say here in VeeCee, "between bites of pasta."

For this reason, we are not charged with accuracy, but with speed. Blinding speed. And between you and me, we are fast. We don't like to miss meals. Done is done. Good enough, is good enough.

With this in mind, please try to speak kindly of us so that we can continue in this important role.

In the first part of the sentence he reaffirms the Churches position. In the second half of the sentence the claim is made he indicated.

Yes there seems to be some duplicity on the matter and it comes from those addressing the questions, and not those who pose them. The secular 'pressers' are asking clear questions like do you support homosexual "marriage" and the answer from the Pope is "no, we don't." When asked about civil unions, then the answer from the Pope and Cardinal Dolan is "we will examine that." So on the one hand the Pope is clear in saying "gay marriage" is a no no, but since civil unions are accepted by governments the church will examine that. So why address civil unions at all if the church does not recognize secular law unions at all? The duplicity is stunning.

It grieves me to say this, but Cdl Dolan is an idiot who is a Dem first and a Catholic when he gets around to it. I’ve seen enough pictures of him with Obama, or with his arm draped around Cuomo or even around De Blasio. He’s just an idiot who wants to be loved by his masters, the Democrats.

As for Pope Francis, I could see that the Church might ignore the “civil union” issue, which is, after all, a creation of the state and deals with civil matters such as inheritance, insurance, etc., as long as the state didn’t start trying to impose it’s definition of “marriage” on the Church and start trying to force the Church to accept it and perform these faux “marriages.”

Dolan, eager as always to curry favor with liberals, stated it very badly. And the bizarre last sentence about some supposed hearsay in Argentina just shows the wishful thinking of the press.

I think he was referring to the laws. If they try to make the civil partnership exclusively sexual, for example, and even call it “marriage,” this would not be acceptable. However, if they simply let any person establish a household with another person (for example, a mother and adult child living together or even just two old friends) for tax and insurance purposes, then it’s simply a civil partnership that has no moral implications.

The Vatican, in the person of Fr. Thomas Rosica, issued a quick statement yesterday responding to the inevitable feeding frenzy, calling the matter of homosexual civil unions delicate, but failing to actually clarify that Pope Francis would not now or at any time approve either civil unions or homosexual behaviour.

Please explain why this Pope has so much trouble with mistranslations and needs others to 'explain' what he really meant after he opens his mouth?

Please email Pope Francis the verses on "let your yes be yes and your no, no." All the Pope had to say was "No" on gay 'marriage (which he did); and "No" on civil unions (which he did not). The duplicity is astounding. Then Dolan gets on TV and makes it worse not better.

is this more dolans interpretation of what he said, or is it actually what he said?

Are you suggesting Cardinal Dolan was a victim of the English speaking press misinterpreting what he actually said? If a cardinal is confused on what the Pope actually said, then "Danger Will Robinson."

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.